GAME, SET, MATCH

So Spencer asks the question, but does he actually answer his own question? I haven’t checked the link provided by yonason, but judging by Spencer’s usual behaviour, it is safe to assume that he doesn’t. And even in the unlikely event that he does so this time around (which would be a very welcome change for the better), the problem with Spencer is that he usually doesn’t.

You tell us not to listen to Spencer.

This is simply not true, in fact I must acknowledge that as far as knowledge about Islam goes, there are few that are better than Spencer. What I try to point out are the shortcomings of Spencer - indeed, even Spencer has his faults, and there is nothing wrong with pointing them out.

I’d be curious to know what exactly yonason categorizes as “paranoid conspirational rantings”, as I failed to notice anything of the kind in the post I linked to in my previous comment.

You failed to notice, because you are a paranoid conspiratorial ranter who sees nothing wrong with what you say, and as yonason put it so accurately, to paraphrase, even Spencer isn’t Spencer enough” for the likes of you.

“Spencer Roberts” is a waste of time. He posts the same derangement drivel over and over in any thread that falls one iota short of condemning Islam as an evil religion. He is stuck on slant, and can’t see his own bigotry and evil for what it is: Evil and bigoted.

…therefore…
Your accusations are false.

(I don’t care that it’s not your website. You are the one who came here making those ridiculous assertions, so as far as I’m concerened you own them.)

You tell us not to listen to Spencer. That’s a “plan?” And it will accomplish, …what? All you would succeed in doing is subverting the most coherent voice of alarm which spells out what we need to look for to resist it, and replacing it with an irrational one of panic, at best.

…therefore…
Your thesis is dreck.

F- for the course.

Because the problem with Spencer is that he is unwilling to draw the natural conclusions from his own vast knowledge. For instance, why can’t he just admit that Islam cannot be reformed, instead of being evasive and present the nonsensical “challenge” to Muslims to reform it even as his knowledge makes it clear that Islamic reform is indeed impossible?

You have one complaint, i.e., that Spencer isn’t Spencer enough for you, so you are out to out-Spencer Spencer. That’s all you have going for you, and it ain’t much.

You have one little drum, and keep pounding on it as hard as you can, all the while sounding the alarm that Spencer is a Spencer in Spencer’s clothing, and that if we knew what was good for us we would either elect you the new Spencer, or just quit listening to him. But if we do the former, we will soon realize that you are an ignoramous when it comes to Islam, and if we do the latter we will be just as bad off, because there is no one else as knowledgable as him who is doing the work he does.

In short, your rantings are shameless substanceless self-promotion, and a complete waste of time.

Anyone who has watched, and understood,this excellent film, or this excellent presentation, knows you are about as fit to be Spencer as any pit bull is to be Lassie.

Good Night

For those interested in reading more about Robert Spencer’s shortcomings, they might want to check the post Contradiction Watch at the same blog.

Although yonason didn’t approve of the writings on “Jihad Watch Watch”, I’d be surprised if he had any objections to the following point, made by blogger Lawrence Auster:

“Though Robert Spencer, substantively, always points to facts strongly suggesting that Islam is not reformable, Spencer, rhetorically, always leaves open the possibility that Islam can be reformed; indeed, he consistently expresses fond hopes for such reformation. (…) May one respectfully point out that this is not helpful? As long as Spencer, an influential scholar and critic of Islam, keeps suggesting that somehow Islam can be reformed, he prevents the decisive realization in the public mind of the truth about Islam–the truth that Muslims are eternally commanded by their god to dominate, subdue, and destroy non-Muslim societies, and that there is no way this can change so long as Islam remains Islam. The discovery of this truth is the indispensable condition of the West’s saving itself from Islam. Yet Spencer withholds this truth from his readers.”

Poster #36 says a lot, and produces little.

Out of curiosity as to what he bases his ridiculous assertion on, I checked his references.

He accuses Spencer of being a pussy cat when it comes to Islam, but his “proofs” are convoluted and misleading, based on misinterpretation and rooted in his anger at Spencer for not rubber stamping his paranoid conspiratorial rantings: not worth bothering with.

But, since he’s given you links, go ahead if you must, but don’t expect any substance.

…interesting way to generate traffic to one’s website, but it’s a one time event. enjoy it while it lasts.

It has perhaps not occurred to many of the readers here, but Robert Spencer is, contrary to popular opinion, rather soft on Islam.

The punishment for those committing terrorism in the Koran is to cut the arm off one side and the leg off the other side. Obviously there was terrorism before there was the Koran.

The Koran declares Israel the land of the Jews and forbids killing Jews and Christians because all three worship the same God.

The link with honor killings is they accure in strongly feudal tribal cultures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_killing
Honor killings aren’t mentioned in the Koran and it happens among Hindus too.

Muslims weren’t the only ones that used the sword to convert people. Chistians went all over the world with their weapons to convert people and the Bible didn’t. Also the Spanish Inquisition had religious justification and they were quoting the Bible, but it was really about controlling the masses. Rev. Wright has also not helped the Christian image either.

“During the Dark Ages of Europe, the only “western” centers of learning and inquiry were in Islamic lands.”

“…one thing about the historical record is noteworthy; the various golden ages of Islamic civilization always occur early in the first few centuries in which a new territory is occupied. Wherever the various Muslim vanguards invaded, the vast majority of the population was non-Muslim. It would take many years for this population to be converted and assimilated. These non-Muslims or recent converts are the ones who carried on the work which many historians are prone to attribute to “Islamic” civilization. Thus, a distinction must be drawn between the so-called high Islamic civilization and the religion of Islam. Eventually as the process of Islamization proceeds the non-Islamic component of the population becomes a small minority and stagnation sets in.” (FROM HERE)

Other articles on that site debunk more of the myths regarding Islam we have been “educated” into believing.

It isn’t a “hate movement” to truthfully analyse the source of most of the violence on the planet which, having been directed at us, poses such a serious threat to our existence.

EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG
(although it is only their own fault if they persist in the face of evidence that they are wrong - as do all die-hard lefties)

Even within the Muslim world, there are “outsiders”. We have seen the split between Shia and Sunni Muslims that is not unlike the split between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Christianity: And some of the horrors committed during the REformation period rivals anything that Muslims have committed.

Blaming the religion itself just enhances the power of those who base their power on “everyone else is out to get us” rehtoric, and closes their communities to contact. While “Islamofacist” might make a cute rallying cry, it creates more war that it solves. “Facist” by itself does not have the problem of linking a religion to a political movement, although I myself would not use that particular word for what is going on in the al Qaeda’s of the world. Plain old “Hate Movements” would do.